 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Price11/24/1999
On November 3, 1997, the Davidson County Grand Jury indicted the Appellant Joseph Oscar Price, III for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and theft over $1,000.00. Following a jury trial on July 27 to 28, 1998, the Appellant was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and theft in the amount of $500.00 or less. After a sentencing hearing on September 16, 1998, the trial court sentenced the Appellant as a Range I Standard Offender to twenty-four years for especially aggravated kidnapping, twelve years for aggravated robbery, five years for aggravated burglary, and eleven months and twenty-nine days for theft. In addition, the trial court ordered the sentences for especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary to run consecutively and ordered the sentence for theft to run concurrently to the other sentences. The Appellant challenges his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping and challenges all of his sentences, raising the following issues:
1) whether the conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping violates due process;
2) whether the trial court erroneously sentenced him to longer terms than he deserves for each conviction; and
3) whether the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive sentencing.
After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. FACTS
On July 18, 1997, the Appellant, Joseph Oscar Price, III, burgled his father's home in Davidson County. The guest house on the property had also been forcibly entered. A handgun valued at under $100 had been taken in the burglary. When the Appellant's father checked his telephone answering machine after calling the police, he discovered a message from his son, the Appellant, informing the elder Mr. Price that the Appellant had decided to spare his father's life and directing his father to refrain from calling the police.
Later in the day on July 18, 1997, the Appellant abducted Mr. Bernard Weinstein at gunpoint as Weinstein sat in his car stopped for a red light. The Appellant then forced Weinstein, a gun pointed to his head, to drive around Nashville until the pair reached a secluded area. There the Appellant robbed Weinstein of his wallet, money and watch. The Appellant threatened to shoot Weinstein in the leg but relented when Weinstein pleaded with the Appellant not to shoot him. Instead, the Appellant forced Weinstein to disrobe and climb into a trash dumpster until the Appellant disappeared in Weinstein's car.
Finally, on the afternoon of July 18, 1997, the Appellant was arrested by the Tennessee Highway Patrol in Henderson County following a high-speed car chase in which the Appellant crashed into a number of other vehicles. He was armed with a handgun, a knife and a slapstick. He was also intoxicated and in possession of a number of items belonging to Mr. Weinstein. Other items belonging to Mr. Weinstein were found along Interstate 40 between Nashville and Henderson County.
The Appellant testified that he began drinking heavily at 4:00 a.m. forward on July 18, 1997. He remembered going to his father's house to get a gun to kill himself. He also remembered traveling on the interstate. Although he claimed to have no memory of the events surrounding the abduction and robbery of Mr. Weinstein, he expressed remorse for his actions.
II. CONVICTION FOR ESPECIALLY AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING
Appellant contends that his conviction for especially aggravated kidnapping violates due process because that offense was essentially incidental to the aggravated robbery
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|